D&D 5E Where does the punitive approach to pc death come from?

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't understand this mentality of "yay I got to level 5!" it's an ugly gamist attitude that causes people to lose sight of the NOW and focus on then eventual outcome: maximizing your character in the form of the highest level, the best gear, the most gold, etc...

I'm actually going to agree with you on that one. I mean, I wouldn't call it "ugly," because that seems like a value judgment on Gamist-type players, but I'm really not a fan of how much focus the game has placed on "gaining the next level". I feel like that's one of the things that took over since 3E, with all of the feats and skill-ranks, and free-form multi-classing. The more choices you make at each level, the less focus there is on what you already are.

Back when every paladin gained the exact same powers, and magic items were strictly on a take-what-you-get basis, there was less incentive to blindly gain levels. If you play 5E without feats, then you can get some of that back. (Of course, some of that is mitigated by the blinding speed at which levels are gained these days; it's hard to sit back and enjoy your third-level spells when you know that you'll be casting fifth-level spells in just a couple of sessions.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Beyond that, Raise Dead has been in the game since the 3 little booklets. How can a 20th level character permanently die in a party of other 20th level characters and there not be a cleric that has raise dead? (Or Resurrection). Or a Magic-User with Wish? Or even reincarnation?

I can't speak for the earliest editions, but AD&D had hard caps on returning from the dead (based on your Con score). And Raise Dead could easily fail. Even the almighty Wish had a chance of killing the caster outright.

As you got to higher levels, there were also more and more effects that could kill you instantly and in non-recoverable ways.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I agree that players shouldn't be able to use death tactically like a graveyard rush, but it shouldn't be a scenario where you "lost the game" either. By this logic, a player who held a hallway knowing he was doomed while his companions escaped is actually a chump because he's going to be punished for that. Essentially we're saying "Yeah sure, DnD is all ABOUT heroic action! Just don't die or you'll be punished for it."

It's not much of a heroic sacrifice if you come back just as strong as you were before. At that point, it's less about doing what you need to do to save everyone else, and more about it being the obvious choice.

You don't lose the game when your character dies, though. This isn't Fantasy Imperium. As some people are fond of mentioning, as long as you tell a good story, then everyone wins. And a heroic sacrifice always makes for a good story.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think this level of contribution is actually meaningful though. A 1st level character may be able to successfully hit and deal damage to a CR5 monster but comparatively, their damage output will be low compared to their 5th level comrades. Also, a 1st level would be lucky to survive a single hit from a CR5 monster, let alone two.

One of the things about bounded accuracy is that while they might be able to take fewer hits, they can also make a PC, from 1st level, that is very difficult to hit even once, even for CR5 monsters. And if they can hit and damage a monster, they can whittle it away, OR, they can also impair it in other ways (damage output doesn't matter if you sling a net over the thing or drop ball bearings or whatever). It requires a lot of luck and skill, but it's not un-viable. It's a way to play that some folks like.

Its become very fashionable to say: "My game is about the story!" "Story is king in MY game!" But punishing PCs for dying in service of the story is completely contradictory to this! It encourages cautious, non-heroic play which is boring.

Yeah, I'd basically agree with that. Which is why I mentioned the Death Flag as being more appropriate to a story-oriented game than D&D's standard death rules (which, while fairly gentle, still let bad rolls ruin your day). But D&D's standard rules are meant to appeal to a large base of players, including players who play in a more "tournament" style where punitive death is fine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is why a mechanic like the Death Flag is good, though -- it allows you to opt in to death, to decide for yourself when a scene is dramatic and important enough to put your life on the line. You don't risk random and pointless and annoying and punitive death, death comes when you embrace it and are prepared for it.

Could you explain the concept of the Death Flag, for those who are unaware? This is the first time I've ever heard of it, in this context.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah, sorry, it's something I've used a lot, so it's easy to presume everyone knows about it.

For 5e, I'd probably do it like this:

Death Flag Variant Rule
This rule can be used to give your heroic PC the same staying power that protagonists in movies and books have - the ability to stay alive even in dire circumstances, but to face death when it is appropriate.

By default, the death flag is said to be lowered. While the death flag is lowered, characters don't die from failed death saves, or from negative HP. If a character falls unconscious and their party abandons their body (or the whole party fails), the DM does whatever they desire to your unconscious form - perhaps your enemies take you prisoner, perhaps your gear is stolen, perhaps you are taken to a slave pen or a food larder, or whatever else the DM can devise short of death. Your enemies have won and you don't get out of the consequences by dying. If your allies can recover your body, of course, the enemy won't be able to do what they want.

After 8 hours, you spend 1 Hit Die and wake up, or wake up with 1 HP if you don't have any hit dice. You are likely in a compromising situation, and certainly in a lot of pain.

With the death flag lowered, your PC won't die, though they can still fail and be put in horrible scenarios. However, when your character is confronting something worth risking their life over -- a time when they're ready to put it all on the line, to risk ultimate oblivion for something vital and important to them -- they can raise the death flag.

The death flag can only be raised in response to taking damage (it doesn't take an action), and it is raised by any individual player when they determine their PC is ready to lay it all on the line. After it is raised, the PC gains a point of Inspiration that they must spend in this encounter. Once raised, all the normal death rules are in effect -- if you fail three death saves, or suffer damage that puts your negative HP total as greater than your normal HP total, you die.

At the end of the encounter, the death flag drops again....until the next time the PC is in a vital situation.
​

TL;DR is that the DM agrees to normally not to kill you, but reserves the right to mess with you if you "die." You can tell the DM that you're willing to risk death, putting the normal rules back in force, and get advantage for dramatically risking your life.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I doubt it would work well (or, at least, as well) in editions after AD&D 2E, but prior to that the expectation built into the game was of a sort of "living" campaign, with many players in separate and alternating combinations, with multiple characters, beneath one or a small cabal of dungeon masters.

It works pretty well in 5E too.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

TL;DR is that the DM agrees to normally not to kill you, but reserves the right to mess with you if you "die." You can tell the DM that you're willing to risk death, putting the normal rules back in force, and get advantage for dramatically risking your life.

By any chance, have you seen a film called 'Stranger Than Fiction'?

I think you lose a lot of the drama from a heroic sacrifice, when the hero chooses to accept that death ahead of time. Of course, it's also not terribly heroic when someone dies to a random lucky shot from a goblin, so there's the trade-off.

 

[pemerton]

In a 15th-level D&D 4e campaign my friend was running, I chose to be a minion (a monster stat block with 1 hp). I lived a long time of not sitting in the back - rather, I was often right up in the mix - and when that character finally did die, it was a very emotional moment for the group. People still speak fondly of that character years later.

I'm assuming that your minion had the benefit of the PC death save rules! (And was very lucky never to take any damage while unconscious.)

Or are you saying that you lived a long time up in the mix without taking any damage?

 

[pemerton]

So where does this come from and why on earth did it ever make sense? Is it a reaction to "everyone's a winner" sports activities? Is it some kind of weird DnD hazing?

If you could just bring in a new character, right where the old one left off, then there would be no sense of accomplishment in reaching high levels.

I think Saelorn gives a reasonable answer to the OP's question.

If you read Gygax's DMG, it is fairly clear that he regards PC level as a rough proxy for player skill. (The introduction to Tomb of Horrors reinforces this view, making fun of unskilled players who boast about their high level PCs that they haven't really earned.)

Gygax follows through the logic of this: for instance, he suggests that experienced players starting in a new campaign might want to skip the low levels and start at 3rd. He also suggests that new players should start at 1st level in their own party, with experienced players taking part only in "background" roles, like playing the mercenaries or torchbearers.

Nothing in his DMG suggests that he encouraged parties of name-level PCs with 1st level companions. You see more modest level variations across the pre-gen PCs for various tournament modules: I think ToH has a pretty wide level disparity, but then very few parts of ToH involve using level-dependent characteristics like to hit, hit points or thief abilities. Only spells, and the pre-gen party includes high level casters.

I don't understand this mentality of "yay I got to level 5!" it's an ugly gamist attitude that causes people to lose sight of the NOW and focus on then eventual outcome

<snip>

Getting to NOW isn't the goal. It's an outcome.

<snip>

So bringing a character in at level 1 or level 5 shouldn't make any difference because the actual level of the character is irrelevant. At level 5 we will have cool adventures. At level 1 we will have cool adventures.

My own sympathies lean closer to this, although I wouldn't call the gamist attitude "ugly". Just not really my preferred thing.

But even from the point of view of story and cool adventures, there is something peculiar to D&D that suits starting at low levels - it doesn't feel quite D&D if you don't begin the campaign fighting kobolds and end up fighting Tiamat (or something similar). So even from the story point of view there can be a reason to start the campaign at low level; but once the campaign is underway, then new characters get introduced at the level that is appropriate to where the game is at (which will be more-or-less where everyone else is).

Remember Erac's Cousin from the original Rogue's Gallery? Apparently he was an identical replacement to the original Erac that died.

I didn't know that, but it makes sense. And seems consistent with the general approach espoused by Gygax in his DMG. There is no doctrinaire insistence on all new characters starting at 1st level.